Legal Opinion
Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 4, 2013No. C067812PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HOCH, J.
This case involves claims by the buyer of an allegedly defective motor home against a lender to whom the installment sale contract was assigned by the dealer. At the heart of the controversy is a question that has divided courts in several jurisdictions: What is the meaning of the contract provision required by title 16, part 433.2, of the Code of Federal Regulations *550(2012)?1 Commonly referred to as the “Holder Rule,” it is required by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for every consumer installment sale contract that is assigned to a lender. The Holder Rule requires the…
2Cases cited53 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Denham v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Angelica Textile Services Inc. v. ParkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Tun v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
- Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Ward, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2020
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.